Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat

Decades ago, The Older Brother opined that when the loony lefties want to violate someone’s constitutional rights, they just claim it’s to save the children. Then if you oppose the loony lefties, they claim you don’t care about children.

Apparently that strategy was limited in its usefulness, because eventually the loony lefties replaced “it’s to save the children!” with “it’s to save the planet!” That’s why Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, eventually quit the organization. He saw environmentalism being hijacked (as he put it) by the political and social causes of the left. Science took a back seat to politics. As Dr. Moore put it in an essay he wrote back in March:

There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

You’ve got to hand it to the loons; they know a useful weapon when they see it. I mean, heck, it’s one thing not to care about children, but who wants to be accused of not caring about THE ENTIRE PLANET?!

Want to achieve your lifelong goal of transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries? No problem. Just claim the rich countries are damaging the poor countries by warming the planet, then demand compensation. The U.N. will happily back you on the idea. Want to use the power of government to discourage people from eating meat? Again, no problem. Just claim that the meat-eaters are causing global warmi—er, climate change.

If you’ve read any of my posts about The Anointed, you’ve likely already spotted the pattern. But as a refresher, here’s how The Anointed go about their business (as described by Thomas Sowell in his terrific book The Vision of the Anointed):

The Anointed identify a problem. This is now THE BAD.

The Anointed propose a Grand Plan to fix the problem. This is now automatically THE GOOD. (By sheer coincidence, the Grand Plan almost always involves restricting other people’s freedoms and/or confiscating more of their money.)

Because they are so supremely confident in their own theories, The Anointed don’t believe they should be required to provide evidence that the Grand Plan will work. In fact, The Anointed are always so sure the Grand Plan will work, they will happily impose it on other people — for their own good, of course.

Because the Grand Plan is THE GOOD, The Anointed are sure anyone who opposes it is either evil or stupid.

When the Grand Plan fails, it can’t possibly mean The Anointed were wrong, because The Anointed are never wrong. Failure can only mean the Grand Plan didn’t go far enough — so we need to do the same thing again, only bigger.

As the Paris Conference of the Parties (COP21) draws near, the international spotlight is more focused on climate change than at any time since the Copenhagen talks of 2009.

But amid all the talk of decarbonising energy and transport systems, one crucial area remains in the shadows. The livestock sector produces about 15% of global greenhouse gases, roughly equivalent to all the exhaust emissions of every car, train, ship and aircraft on the planet.

Wait a second … that would mean every car, train, ship and aircraft on the planet combined produce just 15% of greenhouses gases, right? And yet you people expect me to believe if you force me to buy fluorescent bulbs for my house, we’ll stop global warmi— er, climate change?

Who is eating all this meat?

Bad people, no doubt.

The US has one of the highest levels of meat consumption in the world at about 250g per person per day, almost four times the amount deemed healthy by experts.

That would explain why Native Americans who lived primarily on buffalo meat were always dropping dead of heart disease and cancer.

At the other end of the scale, Indians average less than 10g of meat per day.

They also have one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world. Somebody should inform those health experts of yours.

Left unchecked, shifting diets, coupled with a growing population, would see global consumption increase by more than 75% by 2050. What is being done about it? Very little.

Mean consumption is unchecked?! You mean nobody is applying force to stop it?! Oh, nooooooo! Please, tell me somebody in government is going to do something!!

Why not? Governments fear a backlash from voters over interference in such a personal choice as diet.

Naww, they shouldn’t fear a backlash if they try to take away our meat. Armed revolution, maybe, but not a simple backlash. But what would be really cool is if governments left this whole thing “unchecked” not out of fear, but because they decided it’s none of their business how much meat we eat.

And because public awareness of the link between diet and climate change is so low, there is very little pressure on governments to do anything about it.

Boy, I just don’t know what’s wrong with the voters these days. You’d think they’d stop worrying about high unemployment, runaway government debts, runaway college costs, insurance premiums being doubled because of the “Affordable” Care Act, terrorism, etc., etc., and put that whole meat-causes-global-warmi-er-climate-change issue at the top of their “government needs to do something!!” list.

Are there any grounds for optimism? Yes.

You mean governments are going to finally admit they’re generally incompetent and stop mucking around in our lives?

Even though COP21 is highlighting the need for climate action and, though a deal seems likely, the pledges made in advance of the summit would put us on a path to warming of about 3C by the end of the century, leaving much work to be done if we are to get to 2C.

Riiiiiiiight. Because those models that predict worldwide temperatures decades into the future have turned out to be so darned accurate.

But reining in excessive meat consumption could close the gap by as much as a quarter and will represent an attractive strategy for governments in need of credible and affordable solutions.

I’m sorry, but for a second there, I thought you put the words credible and affordable in the same sentence with governments – you know, like the government that gave us the Food Pyramid and the “Affordable” Care Act. Surely I was mistaken.

But reining in excessive meat consumption could close the gap by as much as a quarter and will represent an attractive strategy for governments in need of credible and affordable solutions.

Head. Bang. On. Desk.

Governments should seize this opportunity.

If seizing the opportunity means seizing more taxpayer money, you’ll have no problem selling them on the idea.

The first priority is to increase public awareness – both to allow people to make informed choices about what they eat and to build support for further action.

Ah, I see. So you’re not advocating for the use of force. You’re all about allowing us to make our own choices. Well, no problem, then.

But it is clear that information campaigns alone will not suffice.

Uh … meaning?

Governments should use the full range of policy levers available to them.

Doncha just love the Orwellian rhetoric of the loony left? We need information campaigns so people can make informed choices – and then we need to force them to make the decisions we know are best.

Changing the food served in public organisations – to offer a greater share of vegetarian and vegan options – would provide a boost to sustainable suppliers and issue a powerful signal to the millions of people who eat in public offices, schools, the armed forces, hospitals and prisons.

And when the “powerful signal” doesn’t do the trick …

Price reform will also be needed to reflect environmental costs and incentivise behaviour change at the scale needed.

In other words: @#$% FREE CHOICE! WE NEED TO TAX THE @#$% OUT OF MEAT SO PEOPLE WILL EAT LESS OF IT.

Will the public accept government intervention in our food choices? Focus groups carried out by Chatham House in four countries suggested that as long as the public could see a strong rationale for change, they would come to accept government intervention on diets.

Great. Fabulous. Awesome. Individual rights? Naww, who the heck needs those? Ya see, if we can convince most people that taxing the @#$% out of meat is a good idea, then it’s okay … even if it means people who don’t want to eat less meat have to cut back because they can’t afford it anymore. Remember, folks, when The Anointed impose their will on you, it’s for your own good – and the good of the planet, of course.

What’s more, the public appears to expect that governments will take action in the public good.

With a strong enough signal from governments and the media about why we need to change our eating habits, the public is likely to come to accept initially unpopular policies.

Riiiiiiight. Once The Anointed in government and The Anointed in the media convince enough people that eating meat is bad, they’ll want you to use force to make them eat less of it. I mean, it’s not as if they’d just make that informed decision for themselves.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to make an informed decision and choose to eat a burger for dinner.

354 thoughts on “Climate-Change Meatheads Going After Meat”

Watch the youtube vid Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire and her book of the same name.
There are many presenters on this topic, but she’s very good.

In addition, know that this scam is being pushed by Gore, Gorbachev and many Lefty billionaires in a bid to control resources and humanity. Meat makes people strong so they want to limit it. Sounds crazy but then so does mass murder by Viet Cong and the Nazis.

Watch the youtube vid Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire and her book of the same name.
There are many presenters on this topic, but she’s very good.

In addition, know that this scam is being pushed by Gore, Gorbachev and many Lefty billionaires in a bid to control resources and humanity. Meat makes people strong so they want to limit it. Sounds crazy but then so does mass murder by Viet Cong and the Nazis.

Okay, I’m back. Dude (or Dudette), I went to college and met plenty of professors. If I had to place bets on an IQ test between the average software programmer and the average professor of history, or political science, or women’s studies, or literature, or just about any subject besides mathematics and the hard sciences, I’d bet on the programmer every day and twice on Sundays. Same goes for betting on the average successful entrepreneur versus most college professors. Or the average engineer versus most college professors. Or the average doctor versus most college professors.

If you truly believe college professors are THE MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE in the country, you are seriously deluded.

In a couple of his books, Thomas Sowell (whose IQ would no doubt embarrass most professors) distinguishes between intellectuals and highly intelligent people working in other fields. The intellectuals (especially those working in academia) have the luxury of proposing theories that either can’t be proved wrong, or require decades to be proved wrong (like global warm– er, climate change). By contrast, a programmer or engineer who comes up with a poppycock theory will produce failure almost immediately. That’s why programmers and engineers are often more rigorous in their thinking than college professors with their pie-in-the-sky theories … such as leftist theories.

Well, I’m with you all the way Tom. I’m opposed to government interfering in our diets and our lives! And on a not totally different subject, the “anointed of NYC” did not succeed in limiting the amount of sugary drinks New Yorkers could consume. Their grand plan did not work and New Yorkers did not magically become healthier and slimmer. BUT, it didn’t shake their confidence! So, their plan DIDN’T fail- they just needed to do it in another way- now it’s salt! Supposedly, making their citizens aware of how much salt they’re consuming by putting little salt shaker symbols on different foods in fast food restaurants signifying that particular food has more sodium than the government daily recommendation, this is going to cut down on heart disease and high blood pressure.

Funny, since I went very low carb and high fat, I have been able to get off blood pressure medication totally and now I eat more salt than ever. Strange…. And I do wonder how much this new program in NYC is going to cost the tax payers???

Okay, I’m back. Dude (or Dudette), I went to college and met plenty of professors. If I had to place bets on an IQ test between the average software programmer and the average professor of history, or political science, or women’s studies, or literature, or just about any subject besides mathematics and the hard sciences, I’d bet on the programmer every day and twice on Sundays. Same goes for betting on the average successful entrepreneur versus most college professors. Or the average engineer versus most college professors. Or the average doctor versus most college professors.

If you truly believe college professors are THE MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE in the country, you are seriously deluded.

In a couple of his books, Thomas Sowell (whose IQ would no doubt embarrass most professors) distinguishes between intellectuals and highly intelligent people working in other fields. The intellectuals (especially those working in academia) have the luxury of proposing theories that either can’t be proved wrong, or require decades to be proved wrong (like global warm– er, climate change). By contrast, a programmer or engineer who comes up with a poppycock theory will produce failure almost immediately. That’s why programmers and engineers are often more rigorous in their thinking than college professors with their pie-in-the-sky theories … such as leftist theories.

Let’s say someone managed to prove, without a doubt, that climate change is real and humans are causing it, and that (for example) sea levels are going to rise by x metres. (I know you think that’s crazy, but please use your imagination.) How would a libertarian society deal with that situation?

First I’ll tell you what libertarians wouldn’t do: they wouldn’t spend trillions of dollars and institute draconian regulations that would make everyone poorer in order to reduce carbon levels a teeny bit and barely change the worldwide temperature, which is what the wacky Kyoto protocol would do. Nor would they engage in nonsense such as taxing the @#$% out of meat based on a goofy theory that this would somehow affect the climate.

Would they likely would do is support the kind of technologies that Bjorn Lomborg highlighted in his film “Cool It.”

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the documentary. It totally makes sense.

But really he is only substituting one grand plan for a smarter, cheaper grand plan. Granted, I can definitely see benefit for individuals/companies to invent alternative/greener energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels, so it’s very believable that this would happen without government involvement. But how do you suppose this would work for the other measures, such as geo-engineering? How would a company possibly make any profit at all by spraying seawater into the air? Wouldn’t this have to be a government initiative?

You still don’t seem to have grasped the concept. The Anointed propose a Grand Plan that somehow always involves restricting people’s freedoms and confiscating their money. The Anointed happily force those plans on everyone, even when there’s no evidence the Grand Plan will work. Lomborg shows zero interest in forcing his plans on others.

If (and it’s a huge IF) we could prove (as in your hypothetical scenario) that humans are warming the planet and it’s going to cause real damage, then it would be a problem of the commons — same as if we knew a volcano was going to erupt, that the eruption would cause major damage affecting humans, and we could stop that from happening by applying technology. In that case, even a lot of libertarians would support spending the public funds required.

The concept of “do no harm” is one of the most important, but widely misunderstood, concepts I’ve ever heard. I used to think it meant we shouldn’t do anything that would harm another. However, it means if you have the choice between doing nothing, or doing something you don’t know beyond a reasonable doubt will help, then you do nothing. It’s a medical concept, but it should apply to everything. Do you know that this will help? If not, then don’t do it. Doesn’t matter if you hope it helps or you feel bad doing nothing.

So when someone says “We’ve got to do something!”, but know that person is an idiot. No you don’t. If you don’t know that it will help, it’s better to do nothing. Otherwise, there’s a better than good shot that whatever you do will cause more damage.

That’s what drives me up the wall about these people. They seem to think the earth has a “correct” temperature, that they know what it is, and that before industry came along, the earth maintained that temperature.

Speaking of intelligence. It would be great if, for your vote to count, you had to answer this (or almost any question) correctly: Which party controls the US Senate? US House? A study was done and many who voted for Obama couldn’t answer correctly. Most Dems are dumb, there’s no getting around it.

When people question the free enterprise system I usually refer them to youtube and ask them to search for Milton Friedman. He presented things so well.

To be fair, both parties have supporters who are idiots and supporters who are highly intelligent.

We require people who want to become citizens to demonstrate basic knowledge of the U.S. government system. I think we should require the same of natural-born citizens before they’re allowed to vote. What is the justification for allowing people to vote if they can’t demonstrate that they understand at least a teensy bit about what they’re voting for or against?

Hear, hear, JillOz – I’ve always felt that Earth has its own plan for everything, and that however important we humans think we are, and however much effect we think we might have, we won’t make one blind bit of difference to the planet’s scenario. Tom – your review of the BBC article was just brilliant!

Well, I’m with you all the way Tom. I’m opposed to government interfering in our diets and our lives! And on a not totally different subject, the “anointed of NYC” did not succeed in limiting the amount of sugary drinks New Yorkers could consume. Their grand plan did not work and New Yorkers did not magically become healthier and slimmer. BUT, it didn’t shake their confidence! So, their plan DIDN’T fail- they just needed to do it in another way- now it’s salt! Supposedly, making their citizens aware of how much salt they’re consuming by putting little salt shaker symbols on different foods in fast food restaurants signifying that particular food has more sodium than the government daily recommendation, this is going to cut down on heart disease and high blood pressure.

Funny, since I went very low carb and high fat, I have been able to get off blood pressure medication totally and now I eat more salt than ever. Strange…. And I do wonder how much this new program in NYC is going to cost the tax payers???

It will cost the taxpayers by forcing restaurants to spend rather a lot to become compliant with the law (which won’t save a single life anywhere). Restaurants, of course, will recoup the expense by raising prices.

The commenter who said I wouldn’t be nearly as angry over an attempt to force people to consume less sugar either hasn’t been a reader for long or wasn’t paying attention. I was 100% opposed to NYC’s attempted ban on large sodas, and said as much on the blog, even though I think drinking a 44 ounce sugary soda is stupid. We should be free to be stupid.

My problem with that transaction is the background to it occuring. A generation ago, junk food was bad for you. You didn’t eat it if you wanted (or wanted your children) to be fit and healthy. However, nowadays, we have had it drilled into us by our “health experts” that potatoes are “a great source of carbs” and vegetable oil is “so good for your cholesterol and much healthier than saturated fat”. Therefore, someone overloading on chips thinking “they’re not so bad” is making a diet decision based on flawed information. Ha! Just like Vegans I guess.

“You probably won’t be surprised that I disagree with the idea of regulating sugar. Yes, obesity and diabetes are major problems, but the key to solving those problems is education. Most people simply don’t realize how bad sugar is for their health. They’re still being told dietary fat is the problem — by a government that subsidizes and promotes wheat (which may be as bad for us as sugar) and subsidizes corn, which makes high-fructose corn syrup dirt cheap.”

In comparison, above, we have you head-banging away blaming The Anointed (which seems to be defined by anyone who disagrees with YOU) and anyone else with the gal to think human-induced climate change might actually be real. Where in reality the blame lies with the idiot who wrote the BBC article. It’s the media, what do you expect??? If you flip it around to the sugar tax again, the situation would be you having a hernia blaming YOURSELF because some idiot suggested a sugar tax! Do you get it?

I see. So your complaint is that while I’m consistent in my beliefs, you don’t believe I’m consistent in my frothiness when I attack The Anointed for pushing a meat tax versus The Anointed pushing a sugar tax. Well, perhaps you missed this one:

“Which is why New York’s attempted big-drink ban was another shining of example of a useless nanny-state regulation dreamed up by The Anointed.”

Was that not sufficiently frothy for you? Not quite as frothy as my comments on the goofball who wants to use government force to discourage eating meat? I don’t know, perhaps I’m not as good at judging froth levels as you are.

Your expertise in frothiness aside, you might want to consider a remedial course in reading and comprehension. I couldn’t be more clear in my definition of The Anointed, and it’s certainly NOT anyone who disagrees with me. It’s those who are so supremely confident in their untested theories and Grand Plans, they are willing to force those plans on other people — for their own good. Got it now?

Your last two sentences make no sense whatsoever. If you had a point there, it’s as clear as mud.

In your meat-tax post The Anointed appears to include anyone who believes climate change to be real, regardless of whether they think a meat-tax is a good idea. (I probably fall into this category, although I’m not as confident as you are in your assertions about climate change – with good reason.)

In your sugar-tax post The Anointed only includes those trying to impose the tax, NOT those who believe sugar is unhealthy.

Each time you comment, my estimate of your intelligence drops further. Nothing in the post suggests everyone who believes humans are warming the planet is a loon or a member of what I call The Anointed. I referred quite specifically to The Anointed as people who are so supremely confident in their unproven theories that they will happily impose their Grand Plans on us. The goofball who wrote the BBC article floats a theory with zero evidence to support it (making meat more expensive will somehow stop climate change) and then calls for governments to apply force to impose her beliefs on the rest of us. That’s how The Anointed operate.

Yes, my sugar-tax post refers specifically to those who would IMPOSE THEIR GRAND PLANS ON OTHERS as The Anointed. In other words, it’s not what you believe that makes you one of The Anointed. It’s the cocksure confidence in unproven Grand Plans and the willingness to impose them on others — such as banning large sodas.

Now do you get it? Or are you even dumber than I currently think?

(Thanks either way for providing further evidence for my statement that leftism is based on emotions instead of logic. I’ve yet to see a logical thought in your comments.)

Not sure if the former Greenpeace exec, Patrick Moore, is such a good example to be quoting.

Moore is an unabashed apologist for Monsanto’s efforts to push GMOs, pesticides and mono-crop farming on the public.

Based on his GMO/pesticides advocacy, one can assume he believes the public should be forced to eat GMO-based foods to improve their health; that he supports Monsanto’s positions against GMO-labeling and consumer choice over what the eat and drink; that he agrees with Monsanto that the FDA and Dept. of Agriculture should continue to approve GMOs and chemical pesticides as safe without any testing for long-term effects; and that Monsanto should be able to sue farmers when GMO crop pollen and/or seed from a bird’s turd inadvertently lands on a given farmer’s land.

Although Patrick Moore is a skeptic versus the establishment’s consensus on CO2-caused climate change “catastrophe”, he remains an avid flag waver for GMO consensus science and Monsanto’s crony/thug methods of of business tactics. He is not a libertarian, and not a supporter of most readers here who prefer all-natural food versus the processed food garbage of major corporations.

I didn’t see anything in your links suggesting he wants to force anyone to eat GMO foods. I disagree with his belief that Roundup in safe, but that has nothing to with his statement that he quit Greenpeace because it was hijacked by people more interested in left-wing social causes than science. He’s obviously correct on that front.

Actually agree with you and Moore 100% re: climate change science (or lack thereof). Also would agree with the statement that left-wing forces are pushing the climate change agenda for social causes. Good for him that he is fighting the good-fight on this issue.

I should add that I certainly think the anti-meat crusade is bonkers, especially since I am into cooked flesh – good stuff.

With that said, Moore is still a pusher of GMOs and pesticides – an establishment stance based on authoritarian proclamations from corp/govt sponsored scientists, not objective, due diligence science.

And, of course, he doesn’t want to “force” everyone to eat GMO-based foods smothered in Roundup, but Monsanto does.

And, of course, he doesn’t want to force farmers to buy the crop seeds and pesticides from a single source, but Monsanto does. And so on, and so on…

Moore once chose to keep company with the crazed anti-capitalism greens of Greenpeace for multiple years, and now he keeps company (in a figurative sense) with the crony-corrupt capitalists who are not exactly models of libertarian thinking and small government solutions.

He pushes their products without regard to the potential damage to both the environment and humans (in any number of ways), which could lead to some dreadful outcomes down the road.

As a result, I simply think the man’s beliefs and principles are somewhat suspect.

That’s my cynical opinion only…..maybe some of your readers would agree (probably not many though).

One more comment. In a recent post of yours about statins, another reader commented that the information was out there if anyone wanted to access it, or something to that effect. The same is true of this ridiculous NYC thing! The nutritional information is already out there for almost all fast food- if someone wants it, they can get it easily! I, too agree that 44 ounces of sugary soda is stupid to drink, and sometimes I bite my tongue when I see a relative with a big sugary drink from a fast food joint. But, that is their choice, not mine and certainly NOT government’s!

Bingo. Anyone concerned about sodium levels can look it up — or eat at home. This is just another case of The Anointed wanting to confront people with information in hopes of changing behavior. It will work just as well as those calorie-count laws, which have already failed.

The whole global warm… er cooli….er climate cha..er extreme weather events has been twisted and contorted to suit whatever event occurs ! we are told of temperature changes for the last 500 years and use that as a measure . what they dont tell you is 1000 years ago they grew grapes in London ! the earths temperature was higher than today . Its a con by successive governments to squeeze every last dime out of us for useless green products

Yup. If it’s hot, that’s man-made climate change. If it’s cold, that’s man-made climate change. If there’s too much rain and we have floods, it’s man-made climate change. If there’s no rain and there’s a drought, it’s man-made climate change. They’ve tried to rig the debate so that no matter what happens, it can’t be evidence that they’re wrong.

Not sure if the former Greenpeace exec, Patrick Moore, is such a good example to be quoting.

Moore is an unabashed apologist for Monsanto’s efforts to push GMOs, pesticides and mono-crop farming on the public.

Based on his GMO/pesticides advocacy, one can assume he believes the public should be forced to eat GMO-based foods to improve their health; that he supports Monsanto’s positions against GMO-labeling and consumer choice over what the eat and drink; that he agrees with Monsanto that the FDA and Dept. of Agriculture should continue to approve GMOs and chemical pesticides as safe without any testing for long-term effects; and that Monsanto should be able to sue farmers when GMO crop pollen and/or seed from a bird’s turd inadvertently lands on a given farmer’s land.

Although Patrick Moore is a skeptic versus the establishment’s consensus on CO2-caused climate change “catastrophe”, he remains an avid flag waver for GMO consensus science and Monsanto’s crony/thug methods of of business tactics. He is not a libertarian, and not a supporter of most readers here who prefer all-natural food versus the processed food garbage of major corporations.

I didn’t see anything in your links suggesting he wants to force anyone to eat GMO foods. I disagree with his belief that Roundup in safe, but that has nothing to with his statement that he quit Greenpeace because it was hijacked by people more interested in left-wing social causes than science. He’s obviously correct on that front.

Actually agree with you and Moore 100% re: climate change science (or lack thereof). Also would agree with the statement that left-wing forces are pushing the climate change agenda for social causes. Good for him that he is fighting the good-fight on this issue.

I should add that I certainly think the anti-meat crusade is bonkers, especially since I am into cooked flesh – good stuff.

With that said, Moore is still a pusher of GMOs and pesticides – an establishment stance based on authoritarian proclamations from corp/govt sponsored scientists, not objective, due diligence science.

And, of course, he doesn’t want to “force” everyone to eat GMO-based foods smothered in Roundup, but Monsanto does.

And, of course, he doesn’t want to force farmers to buy the crop seeds and pesticides from a single source, but Monsanto does. And so on, and so on…

Moore once chose to keep company with the crazed anti-capitalism greens of Greenpeace for multiple years, and now he keeps company (in a figurative sense) with the crony-corrupt capitalists who are not exactly models of libertarian thinking and small government solutions.

He pushes their products without regard to the potential damage to both the environment and humans (in any number of ways), which could lead to some dreadful outcomes down the road.

As a result, I simply think the man’s beliefs and principles are somewhat suspect.

That’s my cynical opinion only…..maybe some of your readers would agree (probably not many though).

Moore says in some video where he discusses why he had to leave Greenpeace: the “new owners” — watermelons they called them: “green on the outside, RED on the inside”! — decided one of their new important goals was to “remove chlorine from the earth”! You know — chlorine? — one of the ELEMENTS on the periodic table?

The ancient Egyptians lasted for thousands pf years. America will not last that long. Of curse, they built the Aswan high damn and the Nile no longer floods and fertilizes the land, so they are doomed.

Only exception that comes to mind and that due to special circumstance.

Moore says in some video where he discusses why he had to leave Greenpeace: the “new owners” — watermelons they called them: “green on the outside, RED on the inside”! — decided one of their new important goals was to “remove chlorine from the earth”! You know — chlorine? — one of the ELEMENTS on the periodic table?

The ancient Egyptians lasted for thousands pf years. America will not last that long. Of curse, they built the Aswan high damn and the Nile no longer floods and fertilizes the land, so they are doomed.

Only exception that comes to mind and that due to special circumstance.

Doubtless if governments were to implement something on the order of a meat tax, there would be meat credits just as there are carbon credits–gotta give the anointed some way to opt out of their own plan, right?

Doubtless if governments were to implement something on the order of a meat tax, there would be meat credits just as there are carbon credits–gotta give the anointed some way to opt out of their own plan, right?

It is my understanding that in Biblical times, Jews were forbidden from eating pork because it was unclean. Yet I have read that the rabbis themselves did eat pork. They also lived in mansions with walkways that were above the main streets so as not to intermingle with the common folk.

I’m just guessing here but I suspect this is where we get the expression, “living high off the hog.”

I’m probably going to be sorry for replying, but what are you on about? Rabbis ate pork? Lived in mansions away from the huddled masses? Did you get a bootleg copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I mean really? REALLY?

Government using taxes to influence the price of food? That would never happen…oh wait…corn subsidies. The same corn that turns up in anything you buy with more than one ingredient. I swear they put corn in products just for the hell of it. Want a pre-mixed spice blend? Check for corn starch!
The idea of a tax on meat when the producers of statins get absurd tax breaks is really sickening.

Well, if they take my meat away from me, or make it so expensive I can only eat it once a week, arsenic might seem like a good idea. I don’t WANT to be manipulated, legislated, or otherwise forced into being vegetarian. I tried that — several times — and each attempt left me fatter, weaker, and with an ever more broken metabolism. (Same thing happened with Weight Watchers, come to think of it.) And I couldn’t help noticing that a few of my vegetarian friends looked kinda pasty, as if they’d sprouted under a board. Maybe I did too.

The longest I ever made it on a vegetarian diet was 90 days. On the evening of my last day as a vegetarian my husband picked me up from work, and as I got into the car I said, “Outback Steakhouse, and step on it.” Wow — I never knew our old Volvo could accelerate that fast.

Government using taxes to influence the price of food? That would never happen…oh wait…corn subsidies. The same corn that turns up in anything you buy with more than one ingredient. I swear they put corn in products just for the hell of it. Want a pre-mixed spice blend? Check for corn starch!
The idea of a tax on meat when the producers of statins get absurd tax breaks is really sickening.

Ok, so let me get this straight: climate is not allowed to change, but diet must difinitely change. Or else.

Or else, what?

Exactly.

————

If I promise to eat only raw lentil sprouts, will I cause an ice age? Just think of all the ice sculptures we could make.

Right now we’ve seen people saying “Oh no, global cooling, Government must do something!” and also “Oh no, global warming, Government must do something!”. I know we will see eventually people going “Oh no, global stability, there is no more changes, Government must do something!”

Really, you ecologists should say thinks clearly and upfront. You want world government. Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. One race, one language, one diet. You guys are onenists.

I read a book called “Air Con” in which the author quotes from media articles going back 100+ years. We’ve had cycles of media hysteria warning of a coming ice age, then a warming age, then an ice age, then a warming age.

Well, if they take my meat away from me, or make it so expensive I can only eat it once a week, arsenic might seem like a good idea. I don’t WANT to be manipulated, legislated, or otherwise forced into being vegetarian. I tried that — several times — and each attempt left me fatter, weaker, and with an ever more broken metabolism. (Same thing happened with Weight Watchers, come to think of it.) And I couldn’t help noticing that a few of my vegetarian friends looked kinda pasty, as if they’d sprouted under a board. Maybe I did too.

The longest I ever made it on a vegetarian diet was 90 days. On the evening of my last day as a vegetarian my husband picked me up from work, and as I got into the car I said, “Outback Steakhouse, and step on it.” Wow — I never knew our old Volvo could accelerate that fast.

Ok, so let me get this straight: climate is not allowed to change, but diet must difinitely change. Or else.

Or else, what?

Exactly.

————

If I promise to eat only raw lentil sprouts, will I cause an ice age? Just think of all the ice sculptures we could make.

Right now we’ve seen people saying “Oh no, global cooling, Government must do something!” and also “Oh no, global warming, Government must do something!”. I know we will see eventually people going “Oh no, global stability, there is no more changes, Government must do something!”

Really, you ecologists should say thinks clearly and upfront. You want world government. Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. One race, one language, one diet. You guys are onenists.

I read a book called “Air Con” in which the author quotes from media articles going back 100+ years. We’ve had cycles of media hysteria warning of a coming ice age, then a warming age, then an ice age, then a warming age.

A while back I read a post and thought it was by Big Brother on your blog, but could be wrong. But basically, it said that while cows *do* release a lot of greenhouse gasses, they do not contribute to the problem. The reason is the carbon cycle. All the methane they produce is simply from carbon that was in the atmosphere a few weeks ago or months ago. (CO2 bound up in grass, the cows eat the grass, and then the carbon is released as methane.) There is no net change. If you do believe that greenhouse gasses are causing a problem, they would be causing that problem because carbon that has been stored in the earth in the form of fossil fuels for millions of years is now being released into the atmosphere.

A while back I read a post and thought it was by Big Brother on your blog, but could be wrong. But basically, it said that while cows *do* release a lot of greenhouse gasses, they do not contribute to the problem. The reason is the carbon cycle. All the methane they produce is simply from carbon that was in the atmosphere a few weeks ago or months ago. (CO2 bound up in grass, the cows eat the grass, and then the carbon is released as methane.) There is no net change. If you do believe that greenhouse gasses are causing a problem, they would be causing that problem because carbon that has been stored in the earth in the form of fossil fuels for millions of years is now being released into the atmosphere.

if you are going to lie, make sure it’s a really big lie. The bigger the lie, the more likely it will be believed! Move thee to the country, grow your own meat and try and get your neighbors to do the same so they won’t come after yours.

if you are going to lie, make sure it’s a really big lie. The bigger the lie, the more likely it will be believed! Move thee to the country, grow your own meat and try and get your neighbors to do the same so they won’t come after yours.